On Jun 3, 4:38 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On Jun 3, 4:48 pm, RMahoney wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 1, 7:08 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote:> On Jun 1,
> > 7:07 pm, RMahoney wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 1, 1:31 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 31, 6:14 pm, RMahoney wrote:
> > > > > > They s
On 6/3/2012 1:48 PM, RMahoney wrote:
I used to think that too, but why should a 'sense of free' will be the
> result of any process in any universe? What would it accomplish? What
> process would produce it?
>
Anything that is in the present universe is here because it is either
stable enough
On Jun 3, 4:48 pm, RMahoney wrote:
> On Jun 1, 7:08 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote:> On Jun 1,
> 7:07 pm, RMahoney wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 1, 1:31 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > > > On May 31, 6:14 pm, RMahoney wrote:
> > > > > They seem to think this free will has some ability to manipulate the
> >
On Jun 1, 7:08 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On Jun 1, 7:07 pm, RMahoney wrote:
>
> > On Jun 1, 1:31 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > > On May 31, 6:14 pm, RMahoney wrote:
> > > > They seem to think this free will has some ability to manipulate the
> > > > Universe in ways that avoid it's laws.
>
On 2 June 2012 10:29, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> or read my recent conversation with Charles and LizR)
On the FOAR list, that is!
David
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googl
On 01 Jun 2012, at 23:42, RMahoney wrote:
Does a Free Willer believe they willed themselves into existence in
this Universe?
Some can believe that. Open question in comp. Actually "this
universe"
is a quite vague concept with comp.
Don't know comp.
comp is the idea that we are (a prior
On Jun 1, 7:07 pm, RMahoney wrote:
> On Jun 1, 1:31 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > On May 31, 6:14 pm, RMahoney wrote:
> > > They seem to think this free will has some ability to manipulate the
> > > Universe in ways that avoid it's laws.
>
> > Free will is one of the laws of the universe. We a
On Jun 1, 1:31 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On May 31, 6:14 pm, RMahoney wrote:
> > They seem to think this free will has some ability to manipulate the
> > Universe in ways that avoid it's laws.
>
> Free will is one of the laws of the universe. We are made of the
> universe, therefore whatever
On Jun 1, 12:27 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> On 6/1/2012 8:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> >> They seem to think this free will has some ability to manipulate the
> >> Universe in ways that avoid it's laws.
>
> > Not the compatibilist one. I think free will is not prevented at all by
> > determinism.
> > Does a Free Willer believe they willed themselves into existence in
> > this Universe?
>
> Some can believe that. Open question in comp. Actually "this universe"
> is a quite vague concept with comp.
>
Don't know comp. As far as I'm concerned, universe can be everything,
all permutations.
I don
On May 31, 6:14 pm, RMahoney wrote:
> Following the last couple of weeks of exchange between Craig and John
> Clark...
>
> Interesting.
>
> I would say John has the edge.
>
> And I have some comments...
>
> Does a Free Willer believe they willed themselves into existence in
> this Universe?
Some
On 6/1/2012 8:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
They seem to think this free will has some ability to manipulate the
Universe in ways that avoid it's laws.
Not the compatibilist one. I think free will is not prevented at all by determinism.
It just boils down to how you want to define 'free will'.
On 01.06.2012 19:19 meekerdb said the following:
On 6/1/2012 7:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 May 2012, at 23:12, meekerdb wrote:
...
Sam Harris just wrote a short book titled "Free Will" and from
the comments it has elicited it's apparent that there is very
little agreement as to what i
On 6/1/2012 7:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 May 2012, at 23:12, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/31/2012 1:41 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 31, 3:49 pm, John Clark wrote:
There were reasons behind Lewis Carroll's writings and so what he wrote was
nonsense not gibberish; "I do six impossible thi
On 01 Jun 2012, at 00:14, RMahoney wrote:
Following the last couple of weeks of exchange between Craig and John
Clark...
Interesting.
I would say John has the edge.
And I have some comments...
Does a Free Willer believe they willed themselves into existence in
this Universe?
Some can beli
On 31 May 2012, at 23:12, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/31/2012 1:41 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 31, 3:49 pm, John Clark wrote:
There were reasons behind Lewis Carroll's writings and so what he
wrote was
nonsense not gibberish; "I do six impossible things before
breakfast" is
nonsense, "sdf
Following the last couple of weeks of exchange between Craig and John
Clark...
Interesting.
I would say John has the edge.
And I have some comments...
Does a Free Willer believe they willed themselves into existence in
this Universe?
They seem to think this free will has some ability to manipu
On May 31, 5:12 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> On 5/31/2012 1:41 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > On May 31, 3:49 pm, John Clark wrote:
>
> >> There were reasons behind Lewis Carroll's writings and so what he wrote was
> >> nonsense not gibberish; "I do six impossible things before breakfast" is
> >> nonse
On 5/31/2012 1:41 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 31, 3:49 pm, John Clark wrote:
There were reasons behind Lewis Carroll's writings and so what he wrote was
nonsense not gibberish; "I do six impossible things before breakfast" is
nonsense, "sdfgsaiywjevry66baq" is gibberish, as is "free will"
On May 31, 3:49 pm, John Clark wrote:
> There were reasons behind Lewis Carroll's writings and so what he wrote was
> nonsense not gibberish; "I do six impossible things before breakfast" is
> nonsense, "sdfgsaiywjevry66baq" is gibberish, as is "free will".
Except that sdfgsaiywjevry66baq is not
On Thu, May 31, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote:
> Does that mean that anyone who quotes Lewis Carroll's gibberish is an
> idiot?
>
There were reasons behind Lewis Carroll's writings and so what he wrote was
nonsense not gibberish; "I do six impossible things before breakfast" is
nonsense, "sdfgsaiywj
On May 31, 1:10 pm, John Clark wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > You are the source. You cause it to be written
>
> And if nothing caused me to write it, if there was no reason for it, then
> somebody would have to be a fool to waste their time in reading it. Writing
> wit
On Wed, May 30, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote:
> You are the source. You cause it to be written
>
And if nothing caused me to write it, if there was no reason for it, then
somebody would have to be a fool to waste their time in reading it. Writing
without a reason is gibberish and only a idiot reads
On May 28, 1:40 pm, John Clark wrote:
> On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > > Did I ever once say that free will means acting for no reason?
>
> That is a very hard question to answer, you said that people don't do
> things for a reason but you also said people don't don't
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> > Did I ever once say that free will means acting for no reason?
That is a very hard question to answer, you said that people don't do
things for a reason but you also said people don't don't do things for a
reason, so is that one reason
On May 27, 1:44 pm, John Clark wrote:
> On Sun, May 27, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > Now you claim not to understand either words will or free? How could you
> > know whether it's circular or not when you claim not to understand either
> > term? When that power to decide is taken away by a c
On Sun, May 27, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote:
> Now you claim not to understand either words will or free? How could you
> know whether it's circular or not when you claim not to understand either
> term? When that power to decide is taken away by a cage, what has been
> lost? How do you know what
On May 26, 1:42 pm, John Clark wrote:
> On Sat, May 26, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > I nominate does not 'happen for a reason'
>
> Then what you nominate is as random as it is idiotic. Idiots do things for
> no reason, smart people do things for reasons.
How does being an idiot allow you to
On Sat, May 26, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote:
> I nominate does not 'happen for a reason'
Then what you nominate is as random as it is idiotic. Idiots do things for
no reason, smart people do things for reasons.
> the reason happens for my nomination.
Read that again and explain to me what the
On May 25, 4:59 pm, John Clark wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > > My doing the nomination is the reason for the reasons.
>
> And the reason for the reasons that you nominated in the way you did had a
> reason or it did not.
No, what I nominate does not 'happen for a re
On Thu, May 24, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote:
> > My doing the nomination is the reason for the reasons.
>
And the reason for the reasons that you nominated in the way you did had a
reason or it did not.
> That doesn't necessarily mean that I wouldn't continue to enjoy free
> will.
Cannot com
On 24 May 2012, at 22:27, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote:
>Reason is not nominating anyone by itself. I am doing the nominating
Are you doing the nominations for a reason? There are only two
possible answers.
>Reasons don't care what I nominate, but I do.
On 5/25/12, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>However, the brain must be either probabilistic or
>> deterministic.
>
> It doesn't matter what the brain's limitations are. It seems to me
> that the psyche uses the brain like a tool. The brain is a 3-D shadow
> of an 8-D temporal phenomena.
Without the psyc
On 5/24/2012 9:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 24, 9:54 pm, meekerdb wrote:
Now we (except for Craig) recognize that these properties can be found in
machines, like chess players or AI with learning. They can be either
probabilistic (in
the inherent sense by having QM random number genera
On May 24, 9:54 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> Now we (except for Craig) recognize that these properties can be found in
> machines, like chess players or AI with learning. They can be either
> probabilistic (in
> the inherent sense by having QM random number generators) or deterministic but
> unpredicta
On May 24, 7:55 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 1:12 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> >> If it is absolutely certain that you won't sleep under a bush tonight
> >> then it is impossible that you will do so and the probability is zero.
> >> My understanding is that you don't ap
On 5/24/2012 4:55 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 1:12 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If it is absolutely certain that you won't sleep under a bush tonight
then it is impossible that you will do so and the probability is zero.
My understanding is that you don't approve of thi
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 1:12 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> If it is absolutely certain that you won't sleep under a bush tonight
>> then it is impossible that you will do so and the probability is zero.
>> My understanding is that you don't approve of this sort of certain as
>> you believe it leav
case, though, and my reasons could
have reasons, then I would be their reason. Me. My free will is their
reason. I buy you flowers and the reason for you getting flowers is my
will to send them to you. The reason is me. The reason is my free
will. The only question is can you admit that I'm righ
On Thu, May 24, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote:
>Reason is not nominating anyone by itself. I am doing the nominating
>
Are you doing the nominations for a reason? There are only two possible
answers.
>Reasons don't care what I nominate, but I do.
>
And if you were constructed differently you wou
On May 23, 10:05 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 5:28 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> >> There is obviously at least a small probability that you will decide
> >> to sleep under a bush tonight.
>
> > Only because of how we have defined probability and our assumptions
> > abou
On May 23, 1:54 pm, John Clark wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> >> Nominated for a reason or nominated for no reason.
>
> > > Wrong. I am doing the nominating.
>
> You are doing the nominating for a reason or you are doing the nominating
> for no reason.
Reason is not no
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 5:28 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> There is obviously at least a small probability that you will decide
>> to sleep under a bush tonight.
>
> Only because of how we have defined probability and our assumptions
> about what it possible. There is nothing to say those definiti
On Tue, May 22, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> Nominated for a reason or nominated for no reason.
>>
>
> > Wrong. I am doing the nominating.
You are doing the nominating for a reason or you are doing the nominating
for no reason.
> > I have many reasons
Then you are deterministic. Many rea
On May 22, 12:49 pm, John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > In addition to approving of one presented option and disapproving of
> > another,
>
> Approved for a reason or approved for no reason.
right
>
> > free will allows us to nominate our own option
On May 21, 7:44 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 4:00 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> >> In a branching multiverse where all possibilities happen at a decision
> >> point, some versions of you decide to type the sentence and others do
> >> not. This could be completely determi
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> In addition to approving of one presented option and disapproving of
> another,
Approved for a reason or approved for no reason.
> free will allows us to nominate our own option for approval.
>
Nominated for a reason or nominated for no
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 4:00 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> In a branching multiverse where all possibilities happen at a decision
>> point, some versions of you decide to type the sentence and others do
>> not. This could be completely deterministic for the multiverse as a
>> whole: x versions of
On May 21, 10:47 am, John Clark wrote:
> On Sun, May 20, 2012 PM Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
> > Free means it is not imposed onto you. It is free because the choice was
> > made by you.
>
> I have no problem with that and I have no problem with the word "will"; its
> meaning is clear, people want
On Sun, May 20, 2012 PM Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> Free means it is not imposed onto you. It is free because the choice was
> made by you.
>
I have no problem with that and I have no problem with the word "will"; its
meaning is clear, people want to do some things and they don't want to do
other
> On May 20, 1:49 pm, John Clark wrote:
> On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > All free will means is any change made because you wanted to.
>
> That would be fine except I know that is NOT all you believe "free will"
> means because I know you would not be happy about a ca
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> All free will means is any change made because you wanted to.
That would be fine except I know that is NOT all you believe "free will"
means because I know you would not be happy about a calculator having free
will, but when the keys "2" "
On 19 May 2012, at 19:46, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 18, 2:56 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 May 2012, at 23:02, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 17, 2:04 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Sense and matter is what I search an explanation for. You start at
the
finishing line.
That's why you are
On May 18, 4:12 pm, John Clark wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > They [computers] won't EVER discover a printer that is sitting right next
> > to them without having drivers loaded and configured
>
> And you won't EVER discover a printer sitting right next to yo
On May 18, 8:02 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> >> You haven't understood a basic point, which is important independently
> >> of the current discussion. This point is that if we live in a
> >> perfectly deterministic multiverse, our subje
On May 18, 2:56 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 17 May 2012, at 23:02, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > On May 17, 2:04 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> >> Sense and matter is what I search an explanation for. You start at
> >> the
> >> finishing line.
>
> > That's why you are looking at it upside down. The
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> You haven't understood a basic point, which is important independently
>> of the current discussion. This point is that if we live in a
>> perfectly deterministic multiverse, our subjective experience will be
>> probabilistic. This is beca
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> They [computers] won't EVER discover a printer that is sitting right next
> to them without having drivers loaded and configured
And you won't EVER discover a printer sitting right next to you if you had
no eyes or hands.
> Did the reason
On May 18, 10:44 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Craig Weinberg
> wrote:
> > I don't think you understand what I understand. Of course the
> > limitation of the 1p view excludes information relative to a 3p view,
> > but the reverse is true as well. Indetermini
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> I don't think you understand what I understand. Of course the
> limitation of the 1p view excludes information relative to a 3p view,
> but the reverse is true as well. Indeterminism emerges as a third
> person phenomenon in that subjectiv
On May 17, 2:04 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Sense and matter is what I search an explanation for. You start at the
> finishing line.
That's why you are looking at it upside down. There isn't an
explanation for explanation. It is both the start and finish line.
>
>
>
> >> You could take any unive
On 17 May 2012, at 18:04, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 17, 9:50 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 May 2012, at 14:21, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 17, 5:49 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 May 2012, at 17:37, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 16, 10:41 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 May 2012,
On May 17, 10:57 am, "Stephen P. King" wrote:
Nice! I read your reply after I posted, it's cool that we seem to be
independently thinking along the same lines.
Craig
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, se
On May 17, 9:50 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 17 May 2012, at 14:21, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > On May 17, 5:49 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >> On 16 May 2012, at 17:37, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> >>> On May 16, 10:41 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 15 May 2012, at 19:44, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On 5/17/2012 9:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 May 2012, at 14:21, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 17, 5:49 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 May 2012, at 17:37, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 16, 10:41 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 May 2012, at 19:44, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 15, 1:0
On 17 May 2012, at 14:21, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 17, 5:49 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 May 2012, at 17:37, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 16, 10:41 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 May 2012, at 19:44, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 15, 1:03 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But a
On May 17, 7:57 am, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
> > That's true, but they don't care whether they output or not. It's not
> > driven by their own intention. They won't EVER discover a printer that
> > is sitting right next to them without having drivers loaded and
> > configured to even connect.
>
>
On May 17, 5:49 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 16 May 2012, at 17:37, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 16, 10:41 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >> On 15 May 2012, at 19:44, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> >>> On May 15, 1:03 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> >> But a deterministic world, i
2012/5/17 Craig Weinberg
> On May 17, 12:01 am, John Clark wrote:
> > On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Craig Weinberg >wrote
> >
> > > > I don't say that [the free will noise] means you're not
> deterministic,
> >
> > I would be glad to hear you say that except that according to illogical
> > W
On May 17, 12:01 am, John Clark wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote
>
> > > I don't say that [the free will noise] means you're not deterministic,
>
> I would be glad to hear you say that except that according to illogical
> Weinbergian logic just because something is no
On 16 May 2012, at 17:37, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 16, 10:41 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 May 2012, at 19:44, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 15, 1:03 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But a deterministic world, if rich enough to add and multiply,
and
thus to contain universal inter
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote
> > I don't say that [the free will noise] means you're not deterministic,
>
I would be glad to hear you say that except that according to illogical
Weinbergian logic just because something is not not deterministic does not
mean its determini
On May 16, 12:41 pm, John Clark wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> >> That's exactly what a sore looser would say after he'd been thoroughly
> >> beaten by a opponent.
>
> > > If I were beaten by a human opponent, why would I accuse them of not
> > making decisions? What doe
On Tue, May 15, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> That's exactly what a sore looser would say after he'd been thoroughly
>> beaten by a opponent.
>>
>
> > If I were beaten by a human opponent, why would I accuse them of not
> making decisions? What does winning or losing a game against a non-person
On May 16, 10:41 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 15 May 2012, at 19:44, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 15, 1:03 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> But a deterministic world, if rich enough to add and multiply, and
> thus to contain universal internal observers, leads alread
On 15 May 2012, at 19:44, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 15, 1:03 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But a deterministic world, if rich enough to add and multiply, and
thus to contain universal internal observers, leads already to
indeterminist first person realities (even without comp, although
it
On May 16, 2:39 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:28 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> >> But a deterministic world, if rich enough to add and multiply, and
> >> thus to contain universal internal observers, leads already to
> >> indeterminist first person realities (even with
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:28 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> But a deterministic world, if rich enough to add and multiply, and
>> thus to contain universal internal observers, leads already to
>> indeterminist first person realities (even without comp, although it
>> is simpler to use comp to just
On May 15, 3:14 pm, R AM wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Deep Blue has several possible moves
> > > and chooses one of them (just as Kasparov does). It makes a decision each
> > > move. And given that it eventually gets to check-mate, Deep Blue wins
> >
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > Deep Blue has several possible moves
> > and chooses one of them (just as Kasparov does). It makes a decision each
> > move. And given that it eventually gets to check-mate, Deep Blue wins
> chess.
>
> That's only the view of a human bei
On May 15, 1:03 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >> But a deterministic world, if rich enough to add and multiply, and
> >> thus to contain universal internal observers, leads already to
> >> indeterminist first person realities (even without comp, although it
> >> is simpler to use comp to justify th
On May 15, 12:56 pm, John Clark wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > I don't think Deep Blue makes any decisions or wins chess,
>
> That's exactly what a sore looser would say after he'd been thoroughly
> beaten by a opponent.
If I were beaten by a human opponent, why would
On May 15, 12:47 pm, R AM wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 15, 11:59 am, R AM wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Craig Weinberg > >wrote:
>
> > > > On May 15, 7:19 am, R AM wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 7:01 AM, C
On 15 May 2012, at 17:28, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 15, 5:29 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 May 2012, at 04:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 14, 2:11 pm, R AM wrote:
I'm saying that decision making, learning, and reinforcement are
possible
in a deterministic world, and you are not deny
On Tue, May 15, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote:
> I don't think Deep Blue makes any decisions or wins chess,
>
That's exactly what a sore looser would say after he'd been thoroughly
beaten by a opponent. And so the last surviving member of the species Homo
Sapiens, 4 seconds before the Godlike comp
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On May 15, 11:59 am, R AM wrote:
> > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Craig Weinberg >wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On May 15, 7:19 am, R AM wrote:
> > > > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 7:01 AM, Craig Weinberg <
> whatsons...
On May 15, 11:59 am, R AM wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 15, 7:19 am, R AM wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 7:01 AM, Craig Weinberg > >wrote:
>
> > > > I would say that they cannot be meaningful in any sense, but I would
> > > > a
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On May 15, 7:19 am, R AM wrote:
> > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 7:01 AM, Craig Weinberg >wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > I would say that they cannot be meaningful in any sense, but I would
> > > allow that some may consider meaningless unconscious p
On May 15, 7:19 am, R AM wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 7:01 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> > I would say that they cannot be meaningful in any sense, but I would
> > allow that some may consider meaningless unconscious processes to be a
> > form of decision, learning, or reinforcement.
>
> O
On May 15, 5:29 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 15 May 2012, at 04:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > On May 14, 2:11 pm, R AM wrote:
> >> I'm saying that decision making, learning, and reinforcement are
> >> possible
> >> in a deterministic world, and you are not denying it. I guess our
> >> points o
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 7:01 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> I would say that they cannot be meaningful in any sense, but I would
> allow that some may consider meaningless unconscious processes to be a
> form of decision, learning, or reinforcement.
OK, let's take Kasparov vs. Deep Blue, Accordin
On 15 May 2012, at 04:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 14, 2:11 pm, R AM wrote:
I'm saying that decision making, learning, and reinforcement are
possible
in a deterministic world, and you are not denying it. I guess our
points of
view are orthogonal.
I am denying that meaningful decisio
On May 14, 11:03 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Craig Weinberg
> wrote:
> > On May 14, 2:11 pm, R AM wrote:
> >> I'm saying that decision making, learning, and reinforcement are possible
> >> in a deterministic world, and you are not denying it. I guess our p
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On May 14, 2:11 pm, R AM wrote:
>> I'm saying that decision making, learning, and reinforcement are possible
>> in a deterministic world, and you are not denying it. I guess our points of
>> view are orthogonal.
>
> I am denying that meani
On May 14, 2:11 pm, R AM wrote:
> I'm saying that decision making, learning, and reinforcement are possible
> in a deterministic world, and you are not denying it. I guess our points of
> view are orthogonal.
I am denying that meaningful decisions, learning, or reinforcement are
possible in a det
I'm saying that decision making, learning, and reinforcement are possible
in a deterministic world, and you are not denying it. I guess our points of
view are orthogonal.
Ricardo.
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 12:19 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On May 13, 4:19 pm, R AM wrote:
> > On Sun, May 13, 2012
On Sun, May 13, 2012 meekerdb wrote:
> just noting that it's still for a reason or not doesn't mean it's not
> coerced or free.
>
If the reason you acted the way you did was "because I wanted to" then
you're free, if it was because of some other reason then you are not, and
either that reason i
Hi Stephen,
On 13 May 2012, at 19:17, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 5/13/2012 9:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 May 2012, at 19:50, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 8:34 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
> although machines can be said determined, they are not entirely
determined from
On May 13, 4:19 pm, R AM wrote:
> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 13, 11:46 am, R AM wrote:
> > > On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Craig Weinberg > >wrote:
>
> > > > What would be the point of learning though? What would be the
> > > > differen
On 5/13/2012 9:56 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Pierz mailto:pier...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> John Clarke seems to be saying
No e in my name. Although I'd love to say I'm Arthur C Clarke's illegitimate son the
fact is my father's name was Arthur E Clark.
> that
1 - 100 of 154 matches
Mail list logo
